Ross. Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Traynor is no more than a Sevco friend and a massive WUM. Anyone who thinks he believes half of what he writes is in need of help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I have no idea if you have eyes. Any chance you can answer the question without the childish personal insults? Your question being how would I know it is the best start to the SPL in a while? Well, this may be County's first time in the SPL but I have viewed the SPL in the past. The fact your cheating club isn't there, added to the fact Celtic aren't having it all their own way has made for a great start to the season for a number of clubs (mine included). You may have a different opinion. I would imagine this hasn't been the best start to a season for you. GIRFUY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Traynors best pal is Leggo :lol: Everything Traynor has written on the Rangers story has been wrong. Rangers will play in the Premier League, that failed, Rangers will play in Division 1, they will not be allowed to play in Division 3. Wrong everytime. McCoist has quit Rangers, no wrong again.Walter Smith and his consortium are taking over, that was not right either. To Finish with the off the scale riches of Craig White :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 As much as it pains me to defend them I think the Juninho thing is a massive smokescreen - is it not that they freed him, gave him his pay-off through an EBT, got told that was a bit nawty, paid the tax due on it, end of story. Or have I got it wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I read the article....did you? I did...slowly, it's quite difficult to read whilst wiping tears of laughter from your eyes. Do you seriously believe ANYTHING that fat mutton muncher writes ? :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 As much as it pains me to defend them I think the Juninho thing is a massive smokescreen - is it not that they freed him, gave him his pay-off through an EBT, got told that was a bit nawty, paid the tax due on it, end of story. Or have I got it wrong? You have to break it into the 2 aspects, tbf. In terms of the taxman they were in the wrong but then paid the tax due (obviously Rangers took their much bigger dispute to tribunal, and won't pay anything bar a tiny fraction anyway given what's happened). In terms of the SPL it's been concluded his pay-off wasn't a 2nd contract. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Or maybe he is asking why the SPL have either been completely incompetent for the past 10 years and have just missed what was being declared to them (They were never hidden and always declared in the audited accounts under the term Remuneration Trust) or do they now some other agenda I dont think the Juninho situation is unrelated nonsense but it has been swept under the carpet Who is paying fo all of this? Not the SPL they have no money, they still have not paid the £600k to the SPL clubs, its now over 2 months late, Hearts cant pay wages and they have blamed the SPL So who is paying for it? are Celtic or Peter L putting any money forward for this? Look, how many times do we have to explain that whether the EBTs were published in the accounts or not is utterly, completely and totally irrelevant to the dual contracts issue. Only HMRC and anyone who has an interest in rich people paying the correct amount of tax should be looking into that one, the issue at hand here is with side contracts not registered with the SPL, and that's what's being investigated. Please tell me you understand this? Secondly, if the Juninho situation is the same, then of course Celtic should have anything they won that year stripped from them, and of course they should be investigated. But even if it is, it's one player with one payment, which they later paid the correct amount of tax on, and the SPL seem to be happy that no rules were broken. Forget Traynor's distortion for a second and think about the fact that you had more than ten years of doing this, and many, many cases. It's like comparing a kid stealing a sweet with a bank robbery. Thirdly, I don't know who's paying for it, but I doubt there's any grand conspiracy with Celtic picking up the bill, please do enlighten us though if you know this to be the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 You have to break it into the 2 aspects, tbf. In terms of the taxman they were in the wrong but then paid the tax due (obviously Rangers took their much bigger dispute to tribunal, and won't pay anything bar a tiny fraction anyway given what's happened). In terms of the SPL it's been concluded his pay-off wasn't a 2nd contract. Yep...arsenal done the same thing, when it was pointed out that the EBT was illegal, they stopped using them & paid the oustanding tax bill. I've highlighted those bits for the 'hard of understanding' (or sevco fans as they're more commonly known) on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 So if Rangers had paid the tax bill then everything would have been ok? It would certainly have been a mitigating factor worth considering when the punishments are being handed out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 As much as it pains me to defend them I think the Juninho thing is a massive smokescreen - is it not that they freed him, gave him his pay-off through an EBT, got told that was a bit nawty, paid the tax due on it, end of story. Or have I got it wrong? No, you've got it spot on. Celtic didn't give Juninho a second contract. THAT is the REAL issue. As keeps getting pointed out, EBTs are illegal. Celtic may have subsequently decided that they didn't use the EBT properly and should pay the tax - but that is entirely up to them. The *real* Rangers on the other hand gave their players second contracts and didn't register them with the SPL in order that they could ilegally use their EBT scheme and get away with it. This allowed them to sign players they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford. In effect, they stole £50m from the taxpayer to cheat their rival clubs and used the SPL's registration rules as a means to cover up what they were doing. And Traynor wants them to get away with it? Its great that its an independent panel of legal bigwigs that is in charge of the punishments. I seriously can't see them handing out anything other than immediate termination of the *real* Rangers' membership of the SFA which is now in the possession of the the tribute act newclub The Rangers FC (formed 2012, formerly known as Sevco). No wonder Green is worried. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 So if Rangers had paid the tax bill then everything would have been ok? No it certainly wouldn't have been! That’s akin to someone breaking into a bank, stealing £50 million and then trying to avoid punishment by paying it back! If Rangers could have afforded to pay the tax bill then they wouldn’t have needed to cheat via the EBTs in the first place anyway. Rangers didn’t properly register their players. They deliberately didn’t properly register their players so that they could pretend to HMRC that their EBT payments weren’t salaries and tax didn’t need to be paid. The very least that can happen is that every single game that Rangers registered ineligible players will be awarded as a 3-0 win to the opposition. Beyond that, I can’t see how anything other than expulsion from the SFA will be the eventual outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Yep...arsenal done the same thing, when it was pointed out that the EBT was illegal, they stopped using them & paid the oustanding tax bill. I've highlighted those bits for the 'hard of understanding' (or sevco fans as they're more commonly known) on here. Did the English FA investigate Arsenal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I see a club called Rangers are listed as due to play in the Scottish Cup at the end of this month. Spartans, Brechin City and East Stirlingshire were excluded/elected from this competition for failing to fill in forms correctly: last season's Rangers failed to pay money due to my club following their defeat at Ibrox in February 2012. From this, I conclude that the 'Rangers' listed in this season's competition is an entirely different entity, otherwise they, too, would surely have been barred from taking part, stealing from another club being far more serious than forgetting to date a form properly. Can anyone clarify? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 To do this we would need to results of the commision, do you have them handy? I don't really understand what you've typed there. But the old Rangers didn't pay up the cash when it was due, which would have been more than enough for any other club to be booted out the next season's competition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No it certainly wouldn't have been! That's akin to someone breaking into a bank, stealing £50 million and then trying to avoid punishment by paying it back! If Rangers could have afforded to pay the tax bill then they wouldn't have needed to cheat via the EBTs in the first place anyway. Rangers didn't properly register their players. They deliberately didn't properly register their players so that they could pretend to HMRC that their EBT payments weren't salaries and tax didn't need to be paid. The very least that can happen is that every single game that Rangers registered ineligible players will be awarded as a 3-0 win to the opposition. Beyond that, I can't see how anything other than expulsion from the SFA will be the eventual outcome. I thin k the expulsion will happen after they lose this case and take the SFA to a nonn sporting court for the second time, there's no way they can get away with that twice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoist Must Stay Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) So if Rangers had paid the tax bill then everything would have been ok? Maybe if Rangers had payed all relevant taxes and ensured that they were living within their financial means during Sir David Murray's watch this thread would not exist? Rangers were around £80million in debt in 2002 while using EBT's. - http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-14880473 And there is a strong possibility that the dual-contracts that most Rangers players had during that 10 year period would not have become public knowledge. Campbell Ogilvie (former Rangers director and holder of 3505 old Rangers shares) who has been the President of the Scottish Football Association since 2003 could have helped Rangers to keep it secret? - http://www.dailyreco...e-clean-1128840 Edited September 17, 2012 by McCoist Must Stay 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurcher Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Except the SPL have already admitted that they cant punish the new company currently running Rangers Football Club, the condition attached to the transfer of membership (SFA) was that the new company accept existing punishments they have no jurisdiction or remit to apply new ones Before norman nabs me "yees norman I know that they also had to pay existing football debts" I have heard they are all now paid And you ya fudd, nobody is talking about punishing newco, if action is taken it will be to remove honours won from the dead/dying oldco as its history stopped sometime around July 2012. It's only Green and co selling you a dummy to pretend newco are the same thing. Newco has no history to be stripped. They were invited along to give evidence if they so desired, but any action taken will not affect them as they are not related to old Rangers apart from the stadium and meaningless star-decorated strip. Rangers Then Rangers Now Rangers Forever....we'll see how long that pretence lasts when one of the creditory challenges them as a phoenix and wants bills paid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 £120M in debt plus CG bought assets for a loan of £5.5M, still saying it is the same club with no debt. Yet they have a company called RFC 2012 PLC which is Rangers itself and thats why the SPL view RFC 2012 PLC as Rangers FC, plus title stripping will be on its way at October. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Did the English FA investigate Arsenal? TBH...i don't know, a quick google search found This. Arsenal are one club that historically used EBTs to pay some players but they are understood to have resolved any issues with HMRC. I'm sure you could dig up more info if you wanted to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Maybe if Rangers had payed all relevant taxes and ensured that they were living within their financial means during Sir David Murray's watch this thread would not exist? Rangers were around £80million in debt in 2002 while using EBT's. - http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-14880473 And there is a strong possibility that the dual-contracts that most Rangers players had during that 10 year period would not have become public knowledge. Campbell Ogilvie (former Rangers director and holder of 3505 Rangers shares) who has been the President of the Scottish Football Association since 2003 could have helped Rangers to keep it secret? - http://www.dailyreco...e-clean-1128840 Rangers fan? My arse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.